Source:

2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard believes that the characterization of her Democratic rivals as pro-open borders is “fair.”

Last weekend, the Hawaii congresswoman discussed immigration policy during an interview with Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report.

Rubin asked her, “So immigration, I think there’s a general sense that the candidates, the Democrats are basically trying to outdo each other for open borders, something like that. A) do you think that’s a fair way to start the question? And B) where do you sit on that?”

Gabbard responded, “I think it’s fair. I don’t — I don’t support open borders.” She added, “Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country. And while some of the other Democratic candidates will say, ‘Well, that’s a conservative argument and that’s not really what’s being advocated for.’ If you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re pushing for, it is essentially open borders.”

She continued, “I think there’s a few things we’ve got to do when we’re talking about immigration reform. One is that we’ve got to have secure borders. This is not Trump’s wall from sea to shining sea, it’s about seeing again what makes sense. I look at things from a practical, objective-oriented standpoint, I’m a soldier, so I look at what’s our objective.”

So far, the immigration issue has been at the center stage of the 2020 Democratic party debates. At the first debate in Miami, all 10 candidates raised their hands in favor of decriminalizing border crossings during the second night of the debate.

Gabbard appears to be a sole voice of reason on an issue that could potentially have a tremendous impact on the nation’s political and social cohesion in the near future. Europe already offers a lurid sneak preview to the problems that mass migration could potentially bring about, and there are some elected officials in the U.S. that want to replicate it.

While Gabbard may not be tough enough on immigration, she at least offers a differing perspective on the issue from the rest of her colleagues. Sensitive issues like these require passionate debate rather than bland monologues.

Advertisements